[quote]kamui wrote:
Dawkins and his New Atheism sounds like a very american phenomenon to me.
[/quote]
This is a completely different topic; How the rest of the world jumps to bash America any chance they get. Love the way you put your foot in your mouth as Matty pointed out.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Let’s look at history
Salem Witch Trial
Crusades
That list could go forever
I do not think that if there is a god and if his name is Jesus , neither would condone the shit Christians do . I think the Christians are pissing and moaning about sleeping in the bed that they in fact made [/quote]
two things here. you have picked out the fringe elements of a group, then broad brushed the entire group in the same light as the fringe element. (thank you cb)
secondly are you afraid today you will be hanged as a witch? are you afraid today the Latin Catholic Church will at the end of a sword take your lands?
700 years from the crusades and over 300 year from the witch trials. you have nothing to fear from Jews or Christians in this age. the crusades if i recall were to reclaim Christian Holy lands.
the difference in what you mentioned could go on forever does not go far at all.
witch trials did not affect that many people. more people die from drug overdoses where i live than were charged with witchcraft.
muslims have killed far more and mostly each other.
…and Jews and Christians do not hide backpack bombs in malls or Boston Marathons.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Then this thread pops up doing that exact thing. It’s just annoying is all. Wait, we have believers who are doing what they just said we shouldn’t do. “Don’t mock and ridicule us.” Yet believers are free to quote us as fools, tell us we lack the wisdom to see the truth, etc. “You’re personally attacking me” right after shooting out personal attacks!
Believers on this site are saying things over and over again to non-believers that they are bothered about apparently and yet seem to feel the need to do what they complain about to us.
[/quote]
the military and homeland security have fundamentalist church groups on their radar.
the irs have teaparty/Christians on their radar.
i don’t what planet some of you are on. no one seems to be yanking rights and jobs away from homosexuals, leftists, muslims etc…
however…
Whenever the idea of Christian persecution in America comes up in a conversation with a liberal, their first reaction is often a sarcastic snort and a condescending eye roll. “Persecution? Of a group of people who are in the majority and vocally active in everyday life? That’s dumb.” This is a red herring. It’s true that persecution in America is unlike persecution in other parts of the globe, but that does not make the persecution that we deal with any less real. We don’t deal with the threats of imminent death or worries of our churches being attacked by jackbooted thugs… but we do deal with government directed discrimination and media driven stereotyping of who we are.
And if you don’t believe that persecution against Christians exists in America? Then you haven’t read this story yet.
The teachers union contract in Ferndale, Michigan which has been in place since 2011 and was recently renewed specifically (and I mean SPECIFICALLY) discriminates against Christians. Check it out.
“Any teacher may apply for a vacancy in a position considered to be a “Promotion” as defined in Section 2 above…Special consideration shall be given to women and/or minority defined as: Native American, Asian American, Latino, African American and those of the non-Christian faith.”
The new billboard by the Restore Military Religious Freedom Coalition simply asks: “Are you free to say so help me God? They did.”
The message on the billboard, which has been posted near the entrance to the academy, is emblazoned on an image of the faces of Mount Rushmore.
The billboard comes in response to a recent attack on the freedoms of religion and speech at the academy.
The message references the removal of “so help me God” from the official cadet handbook and the recent censorship of a Bible verse from a cadetâ??s personal whiteboard.
Richard Thompson, chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, said cultivating religious faith crucial to the success of the military.
“We’ve all heard the adage, There are no atheists in foxholes.”
That’s because the history of our nation evidences the fact that in the end victory depends on the spirit of our soldiers, not the sophistication of our war machines, he said. “As Gen. George S. Patton, one of America’s greatest battlefield generals, once declared, 'Wars might be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of the men who lead that gains the victory.”
If such faith scares faculty at the academy, then it is unlikely they will be very effective when confronted by a committed enemy who is willing to die for his or her beliefs, he said.
The billboard follows a controversy that developed when a cadet wrote, on his personal whiteboard, the words of Galatians 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ therefore I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.”
A leader of a move to banish religious statements by anyone in the military said the words offended other cadets, so academy officials erased them.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, worried that there soon would be punishment in the military simply for being Christian.
“If the military is caving to someone who calls Christians ‘monsters who terrorize,’ religious liberty in the armed forces is in serious jeopardy,” he said.
He pointed out that within a week of censoring the Bible verse, the academy officially was promoting an atheist event on campus.
“The Air Force Academy bends over backwards to promote an atheist event, but they drop the hammer on Christian-themed activities,” he wrote.
the academy’s censorship “is not only unthinking, it’s unconstitutional.”
To H. There are quite a few things about Dawkins’ version of atheism that don’t sit.
He makes a similar mistake to Bertrand Russell except he actually quantifies the likelyhood of a God existing. He does so indirectly in stating that he is 98-99% certain one doesn’t exist, but that isn’t something that is quantifiable at all.
He talks about things like a burden of proof, but the thing is once an idea is introduced to us, whether it is about unicorns or about quantum mechanics, there are still aspects about ideas that need to be quantified in order for them to make any sense. If he states the burden of proof has to be on the theist about God, and that there are no statistics about God existing then there can’t be any statistics about God not existing. Regardless of how many cultures died out historically and their Gods along with them. Those aren’t the same things as quantifiable evidence of lack of God or Gods.
Further, he categorizes people of faith a certain way, which has become somewhat of a technical language in certain schools even though it’s a retarded technical language. The average Christian who has faith, but not knowledge of God is categorized as an Agnostic theist. Agnostic because of faith- uncertainty one way or the other is categorized as agnosticism by his definition. And by his definition I’m forced to call myself an agnostic atheist.
What’s stupid is the only way to be a hard theist or a hard atheist is by stating you are certain there is or is no God. He’s basically stealing away positions of the traditional agnostic or ignostic and claiming them for the supposed hard atheist who is 99%+ certain there is no God.
No regard to etymology or convention. He’s a brilliant dude overall but there is a certain dogma to his positions. He’s not a leader, he’s a bully.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
If there is God, it doesn’t matter if you or I reject the notion or call it by a different name than I do. [/quote]
Thing is, if this God that exists is the God that’s believed in around here, these things most definitely matter to Him, and, by extension, to all of us.
Ecumenism is probably impossible within Christianity and certainly impossible between Christianity and the rest.
[/quote]
Not true.
[/quote]
Oh, I think it is.
The loosest interpretations of each religion might find some way to fit with each other.
But as someone becomes devout, their devotion becomes sui generis.
If Push is right, then Muhammad Ali was wrong. If Gandhi was right, then Jewbacca is wrong. If I am right, they’re all wrong.
It is fantasy, to think that you can find a tree and ask, “how did this get here?” and hear two entirely different and conflicting accounts of the tree’s planting and decide that they are both correct.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You are correct in one sense. I have a rock solid faith that looks to science as an illuminator not an endeavor worthy of de facto worship.
Frame that quote and do with it what you will.[/quote]
One of the peculiarities I’m most grateful to have developed is that I do not feel the slightest suggestion of an impulse to worship anything at all, and in fact would not allow myself to do any such thing under any circumstance. Not god, not science, nothing.
Maybe it’s hubris. Maybe, on the other hand, it’s the truest expression of the best thing about political conservatism. Time will tell.
[quote]conservativedog wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Let’s look at history
Salem Witch Trial
Crusades
That list could go forever
I do not think that if there is a god and if his name is Jesus , neither would condone the shit Christians do . I think the Christians are pissing and moaning about sleeping in the bed that they in fact made [/quote]
two things here. you have picked out the fringe elements of a group, then broad brushed the entire group in the same light as the fringe element. (thank you cb)
secondly are you afraid today you will be hanged as a witch? are you afraid today the Latin Catholic Church will at the end of a sword take your lands?
[/quote]
Using his logic, anyone that votes democrat is a racist segregationist that wants to “put yall back in chains”.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
To H. There are quite a few things about Dawkins’ version of atheism that don’t sit.
He makes a similar mistake to Bertrand Russell except he actually quantifies the likelyhood of a God existing. He does so indirectly in stating that he is 98-99% certain one doesn’t exist, but that isn’t something that is quantifiable at all.
He talks about things like a burden of proof, but the thing is once an idea is introduced to us, whether it is about unicorns or about quantum mechanics, there are still aspects about ideas that need to be quantified in order for them to make any sense. If he states the burden of proof has to be on the theist about God, and that there are no statistics about God existing then there can’t be any statistics about God not existing. Regardless of how many cultures died out historically and their Gods along with them. Those aren’t the same things as quantifiable evidence of lack of God or Gods.
Further, he categorizes people of faith a certain way, which has become somewhat of a technical language in certain schools even though it’s a retarded technical language. The average Christian who has faith, but not knowledge of God is categorized as an Agnostic theist. Agnostic because of faith- uncertainty one way or the other is categorized as agnosticism by his definition. And by his definition I’m forced to call myself an agnostic atheist.
What’s stupid is the only way to be a hard theist or a hard atheist is by stating you are certain there is or is no God. He’s basically stealing away positions of the traditional agnostic or ignostic and claiming them for the supposed hard atheist who is 99%+ certain there is no God.
No regard to etymology or convention. He’s a brilliant dude overall but there is a certain dogma to his positions. He’s not a leader, he’s a bully.
[/quote]
Was this directed at me? I’ve never once defended Dawkins. If H isn’t me I apologize.
Honestly I haven’t followed all the things he has argued nor do I care. I know why I feel the way I do and if he feels differently (which he does apparently).
I was just in a thread saying we don’t need to get rid of religion, and yet many believers are throwing the flames at me like I’m walking around trying to get rid of them all. No one wants to read closely anymore apparently. We just want to jump to conclusions.
Here’s what I said:
[quote]While I personally believe religion has caused a whole shit pot full of bad things throughout time, we don’t need to actively fight against people’s beliefs. It was wrong for religions to kill each other over and over in the name of faith and it is wrong to try and stop people from believing. I haven’t read the document nor do I care to do so.
What we need is more rational believers and non-believers instead of insane zealots who attempt to push their views via hatred and violence. The problem is people, not religion. And this is coming from a non religious man.[/quote]
Of course why read that when everyone can just invent positions?
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
One of the more hilarious things I find with some religious folks is when they say regarding a scientific claim, something along that lines of “That evidence is invalid/insufficient/etc”, yet have no problem doing the mental gymnastics to accept their beliefs, that lack for more in evidence and aren’t subject to as intense scrutiny and investigation but instead are accepted as truth at face value, make sense to them.
Oh, the irony.[/quote]
Where is your evidence for this? Tossing something and hoping it sticks?[/quote]
Jumping to conclusions as usual pat? Did you use your lolgic?
[/quote]
I supposed to know every thread that ever existed where someone has espoused biblical creationism?
Religious folk, for the most part don’t dispute most reasonable scientific claims. Being religious doesn’t de facto make one a creationist, as your logic in the post above suggests. I am not a Biblical creationist.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I am not playing, I don’t actually get it. Perhaps I am obtuse. You’ve seemed to take this as an opportunity personally attack me. You have some strange craving to turn everything back on me taking the slightest semantic to show that I am a hypocrite.
Perhaps you don’t understand context? What I said what is in the light of ‘Surely you cannot believe that what he said is right?’ It’s meant to be provocative. It’s meant to start dialog.
I haven’t read your rule book on how I should behave. But it’s clear you don’t understand me, nor what true hypocrisy is.
[quote]
Why would YOU get annoyed about non-believers talking about judging Christians on the actions of a few and then turn around and attempt to do the same. Why are you talking about being attacked while throwing out attacks? You’re getting defensive about stuff that YOU are doing. It’s strange. Honestly I just find it ironic when I read the thread because you JUST posted how annoying it was because you thought I was doing it. [/quote]
Well considering that I am being attacked, by you, I have every right to defend myself.
You’re reaching. You want to bash me, perhaps just call me names and shit and quit trying to make eloquent, profound character attacks in order that it may sound grounded in objective ethics or some kind of crap.
You clearly got a beef. [/quote]
Your first post asked me if I was off my meds and you come back with I’m trying to bash you. You did EXACTLY what you attacked me for just days ago (which I never did ironically) and started a new thread to do it and now you’re attempting to backtrack and make it look like I’ve got something against you.
I don’t have anything against you. I was very surprised that someone who was annoyed at believers using the actions of a few to talk about a group would run back and make a thread doing the exact same thing. It just didn’t make sense, honestly thought it was a joke at first. I posted, you attacked me, and since then you’ve been trying to act like I’m deliberately trying to expose you.
I’m not trying to expose anything by quoting your words. You’re behind the 8 ball in this thread and you’re trying to pretend like you’ve got people after you or you’re some type of victim who has a right to defend yourself.
No one is attacking you. I have always liked you as a poster. I just don’t think you have been consistent with your arguments recently and I’m not the only one. People are pointing that out. It really shouldn’t bother you that much. Are you off your meds is a character attack. Perhaps you don’t understand is a character attack. Here’s your words where you go against what you say in this thread which people are doing to you is NOT a character attack. It is pointing out a logical fallacy.
So for the last time in this thread, relax man. I won’t speak for everyone else in here, but I have nothing against YOU. You can keep making posts all day long about how people need to start threads about you or whatever or how people are out to get you, but it’s your own paranoia. I think most people who have been quoting you from other threads are pointing out inconsistencies, not saying “let’s torch Pat.”
Like I said, bullshit internet discussion. We win some, we lose some. End of the day we all go back to sleep until we are bored enough to log back in. Have a fantastic day my man. [/quote]
Whatever man. ‘Everyone’ as you say, does not appear to be on board with you. And you can call it what you want, but you singled me out, calling me inconsistent and a hypocrite, without justification. Apparently what I say chaps your ass. Most people don’t give a shit what I say.
For a bullshit thread that has no meaning you sure post a lot in it. The threads I think are a waste of time and bullshit I don’t even look at. I don’t post in them. I don’t take the time to let everybody know what a waste of time I think it is. Because if it’s a waste of time, I won’t waste my time with it. If it’s such a waste, then don’t bother with it.
I am done with this shit. From here on out I will just ignore, this back and forth is pointless and I have spent way more energy on it than it deserves. You’re one dude, not ‘everyone’, BTW.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Atheism does not require faith, it requires reason. We are hardwired for religious belief and the atheist is going against that wiring, whether God or evolution (or both) wired us that way is another matter, by using reason and logic. The problem most religious people have is accepting the irrationality of their beliefs. It doesn’t mean they are wrong. [/quote]
It does require faith. There is no God and you believe it, but there is no reason to back it up.
Atheists have the same problem as theists philosophically. Why there exists something rather than nothing is still a philosophical problem whether you are theist or atheist.
The theist believes that something, whatever that may be exists because God caused it to exist. Atheists have varying theories on why something exists rather than nothing, but they have very little agreement on what ‘that’ is. They just know it’s not God.
The existence of God can be philosophically argued to be true and though objections do exist, they have yet to be proven.[/quote]
How is atheism faith? Basing what one believes upon scientific evidence and facts is not the same as basing it on what cannot be proven or measured or even observed. And the atheist, when confronted with a question that he cannot answer using science, will admit that he doesn’t know which is different from the believer. Do believers ever describe anything they believe to be true as theories? Of course not as that would be incongruous.
[quote]AceRock wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]AceRock wrote:
I don’t believe in God, therefore, I suppose this could be directed at me, in a wildly general sense.
I never voted for Dawkins to be my leader.
Simply because this guy wants to advocate being a jerk in public to other people, he’s now appointed over me and stands as my representative? Calling myself the leader of the free world doesn’t make me the POTUS.
This also implies there is a group or a movement of which to be a leader. This is a false assumption. I don’t have an atheist/agnostic membership card. Or a mensa card, for that matter…
Pat, my man, I don’t believe you believe this.[/quote]
It’s not directed at you, at all.
Richard Dawkins, like it or not, is a very popular, celebrated figure of the New Atheist movement.
I understand, and here it often that atheists claim not to be part of a ‘group’ so to speak. But there are groups, rallies, websites w/ memberships for atheists.
And like it or not, from the outside looking in Dawkins is a leader and a major figure of the New Atheist movement. You may not see yourself as part of a group, but to us dumbass believers, it looks very much like a group, a movement.
Often well people think of atheism, he comes to mind. Whether or not he represents you, he represents your beliefs.
No, I absolutely do not think atheists, as a general rule agree with what Dawkins said here, but some do. I of course had some great conversations with atheists here and elsewhere that was mutually respectful and quite enjoyable.
Whether or not you consider Dawkins ‘your leader’, people associate atheism with Dawkins. If you walk around and tell people you’re atheist, chances are Dawkins is going to come up. And Dawkins is saying the ridiculous petty things. He’s damn sure no doing you any favors.
But no Ace, I certainly didn’t have you in mind when I posted this. I ran across it, and my jaw dropped. I couldn’t believe a supposedly educated and celebrated man would say such nonsense. So I posted it to have a conversation about it.
Who agrees, who disagrees and whatever comes of it. That’s all.
I don’t think you’re a bad guy. I don’t think you’re the type to mock and disparage believers.
You’re certainly entitled to think we are crazy and stupid, but I trust you know how to conduct yourself.
I believe in the transubstantiation, I am a proud, unashamed Catholic. I don’t expect most people here are going to call me names because of it. You may think I am an idiot, but you aren’t going to remove my dignity as a human being because of it. Apparently Dawkins would. And as many arguments as he has lost to theists, he really should be a bit more humble. Or maybe thats why he’s mad. Who knows.
He said something with shock value, so I figured I float it and see how others perceive it. [/quote]
I know it wasn’t personally directed at me from you, thus the “wildly general sense” from my post. I meant that as an agnostic/atheist/whatever, you asked a question to the demographic under which I fall.
I’m only an atheist because you call me so. It’s like an uncle or an American. I’m just sitting here and now I have a label. I do not self-identify as such.
[/quote]
My expectation was that most atheists would not agree. But I wanted to see who did and if so why?
You may not be a dawkins disciple and it seems that atheist intelligentsia has been distancing themselves from Dawkins because of tripe like this. But I was curious who agrees. Because he is a very popular atheist, and when many think of atheisms, the utterance of Dawkins is not far behind.
So because he is so popular and likened himself to be a leader of the ‘New Atheism’ movement, I want to see who was on board with this type of stuff.
I mean if a popular Christian figure had said something like that in reverse, it would be front page news. People would go out of there minds over it.
I don’t think context could really save either clip, unless somehow he was found to be quoting someone else or acting in jest, but I don’t get that from them. It’s possible. And if there is some face saving context that would sort of excuse him, then I am open to hearing it. I looked, but I could not find the full discussions on either instance.
Honestly I have no idea either. It just sort of came out of the blue. I pissed in someone’s Corn Flakes apparently.
The New Atheist movement is basically characterized by the ‘4 horsemen’ of Atheism and a movement to ‘spread the word’ so to speak. It does have an ugly undertone because it’s doesn’t merely seek to challenge the establishment and call for discussion, it has this ‘conquer and disparage’ aire about it. This is different from the non-believer who is content to live and let live, this is an actual ‘get the word out’ type movement.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
One of the more hilarious things I find with some religious folks is when they say regarding a scientific claim, something along that lines of “That evidence is invalid/insufficient/etc”, yet have no problem doing the mental gymnastics to accept their beliefs, that lack for more in evidence and aren’t subject to as intense scrutiny and investigation but instead are accepted as truth at face value, make sense to them.
Oh, the irony.[/quote]
Where is your evidence for this? Tossing something and hoping it sticks?[/quote]
Jumping to conclusions as usual pat? Did you use your lolgic?
[/quote]
I supposed to know every thread that ever existed where someone has espoused biblical creationism?
Religious folk, for the most part don’t dispute most reasonable scientific claims. Being religious doesn’t de facto make one a creationist, as your logic in the post above suggests. I am not a Biblical creationist.[/quote]
You asked for evidence of religious people not critically investigating, and I posted it for you, so don’t get defensive. I didn’t say you were a biblical creationist. And I also never said that being religious makes one a creationist, so cut it out with the straw man bullshit tactics.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
If there is God, it doesn’t matter if you or I reject the notion or call it by a different name than I do. [/quote]
Thing is, if this God that exists is the God that’s believed in around here, these things most definitely matter to Him, and, by extension, to all of us.
Ecumenism is probably impossible within Christianity and certainly impossible between Christianity and the rest.
[/quote]
Not true.
[/quote]
Oh, I think it is.
The loosest interpretations of each religion might find some way to fit with each other.
But as someone becomes devout, their devotion becomes sui generis.
If Push is right, then Muhammad Ali was wrong. If Gandhi was right, then Jewbacca is wrong. If I am right, they’re all wrong.
It is fantasy, to think that you can find a tree and ask, “how did this get here?” and hear two entirely different and conflicting accounts of the tree’s planting and decide that they are both correct.[/quote]
Well if we’re are hashing out theology, then sure we each will defend that which we relate to the most. But that is an academic, argumentative affect. It’s not a real world, “I am better than you” modality.
Yes, I know you can put forth examples where that occurs, but in many cases it also does not occur.
If a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu or a Christian has a flat tire, I am willing to help them all equally.
I have been to a mosque with a Muslim friend I had a few years ago and did Friday prayers with him. I have spoke with a Hindu coworker about religion and faith extensively. I have had Jewish friends and talked and exchanged ideas about religion. It was all friendly, it was non-condemning it was seeking for understanding. In doing all that, I understand my own faith better as a result.
So yes, there is ecumenism between the faiths. People of goodwill exchanging ideas in a friendly manner. Listening to one another in their expressions of faith. It happens on a personal level. Sometimes it happens in a larger expression too.
Popes have been to a mosque before, for the purpose of having a relationship, not to change anyone. Pope John Paul II was best friends with a Jewish Rabbi.
What I found from my experience is that, at our core, though our theologies are different, our love of God was the same. I didn’t condemn them, nor did they condemn me.
We were able to get alone, share some common things about faith and put differences aside.
It’s not only possible, it’s happened and happens. It happens at the human level. When all the screaming and shouting over each other is through, what we have left are people. People with a longing to be closer to God. It’s not a judgement on who’s right and who’s wrong. It’s not a shouting match or ‘My God can beat up your God.’
You certainly have some very negative impressions on religion and religious. I honestly don’t know what I could do to change that impression. I shared my experience, but I am sure that won’t be enough.
Are you willing to look at cases of ecumensim? See where people actually do get along despite the difference in belief? Where religious difference is not the impetus of war and evil?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Atheism does not require faith, it requires reason. We are hardwired for religious belief and the atheist is going against that wiring, whether God or evolution (or both) wired us that way is another matter, by using reason and logic. The problem most religious people have is accepting the irrationality of their beliefs. It doesn’t mean they are wrong. [/quote]
It does require faith. There is no God and you believe it, but there is no reason to back it up.
Atheists have the same problem as theists philosophically. Why there exists something rather than nothing is still a philosophical problem whether you are theist or atheist.
The theist believes that something, whatever that may be exists because God caused it to exist. Atheists have varying theories on why something exists rather than nothing, but they have very little agreement on what ‘that’ is. They just know it’s not God.
The existence of God can be philosophically argued to be true and though objections do exist, they have yet to be proven.[/quote]
How is atheism faith? Basing what one believes upon scientific evidence and facts is not the same as basing it on what cannot be proven or measured or even observed. And the atheist, when confronted with a question that he cannot answer using science, will admit that he doesn’t know which is different from the believer. Do believers ever describe anything they believe to be true as theories? Of course not as that would be incongruous. [/quote]
If you believe that which you have no evidence for or that where the evidence is not conclusive then you are acting in some degree of faith. Where certainty lacks, faith fills in.
It’s more than believing the absence of a God. It’s believing also that life has no objective meaning, that moral values have no objective foundation and that existence comes from nothing or just is. There is not good or sufficient evidence to back any of those beliefs up, but a healthy majority of atheist believe it. You believe it on faith.
And be careful how you treat science less you make it ‘your religion’. Science is not religion. Science isn’t in the business of proving or disproving religion. It’s an over extension and misuse of the discipline. That doesn’t mean they don’t ever intersect. But one must be prudent to keep your definitions clean.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
One of the more hilarious things I find with some religious folks is when they say regarding a scientific claim, something along that lines of “That evidence is invalid/insufficient/etc”, yet have no problem doing the mental gymnastics to accept their beliefs, that lack for more in evidence and aren’t subject to as intense scrutiny and investigation but instead are accepted as truth at face value, make sense to them.
Oh, the irony.[/quote]
Where is your evidence for this? Tossing something and hoping it sticks?[/quote]
Jumping to conclusions as usual pat? Did you use your lolgic?
[/quote]
I supposed to know every thread that ever existed where someone has espoused biblical creationism?
Religious folk, for the most part don’t dispute most reasonable scientific claims. Being religious doesn’t de facto make one a creationist, as your logic in the post above suggests. I am not a Biblical creationist.[/quote]
You asked for evidence of religious people not critically investigating, and I posted it for you, so don’t get defensive. I didn’t say you were a biblical creationist. And I also never said that being religious makes one a creationist, so cut it out with the straw man bullshit tactics.[/quote]
Okay, so you provided some evidence that some people here are biblical creationists. Originally you said it without precedent, just out of the blue.
I could say I find it hilarious when atheists perform mental gymnastics to prove something came from nothing.
Then I get all kinds of horseshit nonsense about ‘science-this’ and ‘quantum mechanics says’.
Where actually I am basing it on a statement by Dr. Lawrence Krauss who famously said “It depends on what your definition of ‘nothing’ is.”
This was in defense of his book ‘Something from Nothing’.
[quote]pat wrote:The New Atheist movement is basically characterized by the ‘4 horsemen’ of Atheism and a movement to ‘spread the word’ so to speak. It does have an ugly undertone because it’s doesn’t merely seek to challenge the establishment and call for discussion, it has this ‘conquer and disparage’ aire about it. This is different from the non-believer who is content to live and let live, this is an actual ‘get the word out’ type movement.
[/quote]
After centuries of people shoving religion down other people’s throats the religious are upset that a guy shoved back? Really? Most religions are based on get the word out movements. I’ve had my door knocked on by so many different faiths. Why won’t they leave me alone? We’re actually mad if someone who doesn’t believe does the same thing? The NEXT atheist or agnostic to knock on my door will be the first. I’m SURROUNDED by religious billboards and in Kansas where I’ve largely been I see 0 atheist ones. Yet all believers see is how they are being attacked all the time for their thoughts. I say welcome to the club fellas.
Someone’s faith doesn’t bother me. Someone’s lack of faith doesn’t bother me. A Muslim, a Catholic, an agnostic, a Mormon, they are all the same to me. I could give two shits less. What I dislike is when I get attacked for my views AND when other people use something they believe in to do horrific things.
Organized religion throughout time has been based on the conquer mentality so to see those who are proponents of it complain when someone else does it is…well, interesting I guess.
Is this what you the non-believer think was your original question. The forum answered you…no, it isn’t what we on the forum who don’t believe think. Playing the victim doesn’t necessarily make someone one.
[quote]pat wrote:
Okay, so you provided some evidence that some people here are biblical creationists. Originally you said it without precedent, just out of the blue.
I could say I find it hilarious when atheists perform mental gymnastics to prove something came from nothing.
Then I get all kinds of horseshit nonsense about ‘science-this’ and ‘quantum mechanics says’.
Where actually I am basing it on a statement by Dr. Lawrence Krauss who famously said “It depends on what your definition of ‘nothing’ is.”
This was in defense of his book ‘Something from Nothing’.[/quote]
If anyone has been around here long enough, it’s pretty established that there are some creationists here. In fact, you participated in the thread I posted, so quit playing dumb like you’re not aware of threads that you’ve participated in. So you should be aware of where I would be getting my examples, as you did in fact participate in that very thread.
How is using science or quantum mechanics or whatever is applicable to the specific situation, to explain observations of the world “horseshit nonsense”?
I’m familiar with that book, my brother has it, but I haven’t read it.
The difference is that the mental gymnastics of physicists is based on something measurable.
Not all atheists think that the universe came from nothing, I’m content to say that I don’t know, while you/someone else says it was God (or maybe you don’t). Big difference there.
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Do believers ever describe anything they believe to be true as theories? Of course not as that would be incongruous. [/quote]
I think this is a good point. Everyone accepts multiple theories about everything else. Everyone here accepts multiple theories about that Malaysian plane. We all come up with theories of what happened and we listen to the theories of others. We think some are more likely than others but ultimately know the truth is going to be at least somewhat different than anyone’s best guess.
It’s never this way for believers. Wether they be Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish or whatever. Their belief is the end all be all and they won’t accept any other possibilities.
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Do believers ever describe anything they believe to be true as theories? Of course not as that would be incongruous. [/quote]
I think this is a good point. Everyone accepts multiple theories about everything else. Everyone here accepts multiple theories about that Malaysian plane. We all come up with theories of what happened and we listen to the theories of others. We think some are more likely than others but ultimately know the truth is going to be at least somewhat different than anyone’s best guess.
It’s never this way for believers. Wether they be Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish or whatever. Their belief is the end all be all and they won’t accept any other possibilities.[/quote]
x2